How is splitting a long post into multiple consecutive posts clearer than this
Nice bit of PR there, Scott: pick out a perfectly-lengthed multi-specific post to prove that you are right.
What about the quality, Scott? Is that perfect, too?
And can all multi-specific responses be as perfect as yours?
causes can be justified if the focus is specific and limited. That's why '****' happens quite alot in the world. I'm not necessarily saying that what you are saying is poo. But what I am saying, is that you are focusing on a very short-sighted and trivial ideal at the expense of something that is significantly more important.
How does the re-display of one's avatar, post count, signature do the job any better than an extra line break or some asterisks?
That's VERY trivial Scott. You even make it sound as though you spend eons looking at the avatar, post-count & signature of every post, as you scroll downwards.
Also, something else has come to mind: why should it bug you to read this response to you, for example, and then have to FLEETINGLY
see a header prior to reading the next post after this?
... I bypass all of the 'fluff' that you talk about in an instant
! And then I'm onto the next post.
Do you hate 'instants', Scott? How impatient are you?
Can you not even scroll past what amounts to a second of your life
, in order to read the next post?!
Really, Scott, this is what this update amounts to. And at what price?! Well, getting you to acknowledge the frustrations & concerns here has been hard work. You've made alsorts of excuses and have ignored alot of what I and others have said.
BUT WHY? - BECAUSE THE NEW UPDATE ALLOWS YOU TO NOT HAVE TO WASTE ABOUT A SECOND
(if that) OF YOUR LIFE, AS YOU SCROLL DOWN THROUGH THE NEW REPLIES!!!!!!!!!
This update IS NOT justified, Scott, and is a reflection of your personal - but irrational - impatiences. The reason for this update is so trivial (wasting a second of your life), that I am flabbergasted.
Furthermore, your defence amounts to constantly linking us to the 'perfect example' of how you tackled responding to three people in a reasonable amount of words - but swept over the quality of those words. Consequently then, this defence also implicitly proclaims that ALL replies to multiple posts can be responded to in a reasonable amount of QUALITY text. That's nonsensical reasoning.
In other words, your link/example is futile and worthless (as evidence that you are right).
I've got to the stage where I'm not that bothered anymore. If this is the way the forum is going to be run, then I'm not that worried if the 'boss' gets upset with me. But, I'm determined to make a point, before I have to go.